khenleydia
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:18 am

A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:19 am

After looking at earlier concepts of the A380, 747 and the final versions of both aircraft, it looks like the A380 is wasting some space. The flight deck is between both levels, which means neither level can run the full length of the aircraft, like the main level in the 747. Had they moved the flight deck up or down to match a level, wouldn't that have increased the number of paxs it could carry, and in the end, revenue?

KhenleyDIA
Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:26 am

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Thread starter):
Had they moved the flight deck up or down to match a level, wouldn't that have increased the number of paxs it could carry, and in the end, revenue?

This was done to keep pilot cabin compatibilty closer to their current products, so a pilot wouldn't have to relearn flying A380 as if it were a 747 as opposed to coming off of a A330/B767 type.

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Thread starter):
The flight deck is between both levels, which means neither level can run the full length of the aircraft, like the main level in the 747.

I wonder what if anything goes into the space in the crest above/behind the pilot's cabin forward of the upper deck? If maybe operational equipment, then nevermind.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

What Exactly Are These Pilots Doing?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:30 am

You would think yes. This is a very good question maybe someone with better knowledge of the A380 design can chime in here. The 747 design in my opinion seems better as it allows seats to be placed literally all the way to the nose and also allows for an opening nose for cargo.

But at the same time I know that the engineers at Airbus know a little more than me when it comes to designing aircraft so obviously there is a valid reason anyone have any ideas?

J.T.

EDIT: woops you beat me to it...


what I dont understand is how having a cockpit slightly higher say on the second level would effect fleet commanality? Sure it would take some training since your sitting higher but I would think having much more passenger seating and the possibility of cargo door a much greater benefit over having a pilot sit 10 feet lower. There has to be another reason.

[Edited 2005-04-04 04:35:29]
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17205
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:44 am

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 2):
what I dont understand is how having a cockpit slightly higher say on the second level would effect fleet commanality? Sure it would take some training since your sitting higher but I would think having much more passenger seating and the possibility of cargo door a much greater benefit over having a pilot sit 10 feet lower. There has to be another reason.

Separation of the flight deck completely from the pax decks with the lobby between them is one.

A forward cargo door was never envisaged for the 380. Airbus figures the market for oversize cargo aircraft is not large enough for one more player. Normal cargo can be loaded quite easily through side doors.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:14 pm

I think I saw a diagram of an A380, and in the "forehead" above the cockpit was some air conditioning equipment (not totally implausible considering the size of the thing).
 
pdxtriple7
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:27 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:20 pm

I thought I remember hearing on this site that the reason for the cockpit placement in the middle was that it was found to be more aero dynamic then the design on the B747. I think the "forehead" looks really awkward. Maybe airbus should add some hair  laughing 
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:26 pm

ContinentalFan,
I have read the same as you posted, aircon equipment.

Ruscoe
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:51 pm

Yet another A380 topic. Seems our American Friends are very interested in this aircraft  cheerful 

I'm guessing this is at least the 100th A380 topic  scratchchin 
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
khenleydia
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:18 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:03 pm

Quoting N754PR (Reply 7):
Yet another A380 topic. Seems our American Friends are very interested in this aircraft

Any plane that is that large and unique, is certainly interesting. It doesn't matter if people love just Airbus or just Boeing, they will find something of interest in the other companies designs. They might not be willing to admit it, but it is true!  Smile

KhenleyDIA
Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:31 am

Define wasting space. Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck? Who says just because the two passenger decks don't run right to the very tip of the aircraft that there is 'wasted space'? But I guess had Boeing proposed this design, it would be unique and nobody would question it, right!?
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:04 am

I remember reading somewhere that the 747 would not be allowed to be certified today and current 747s are certified using grand father rights. The problem is today there must be an exit at the front and the rear of each section of the cabin and the first class section of 747s obviously don't meet this requirement, but the A380 does.

Rgds CCA
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
filton216
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:19 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:11 am

Is it true from what I have heard and that the flight deck has a special lift that goes down to it and only pilots and cabin crew can access?

filton216
Filton216 - The home of Concorde 216!
 
as739x
Posts: 5018
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:24 am

N754PR...who isn't interested in the A380? Though you may think Americans are anti-Airbus and all that BS, people are very interested in it. Its remarks like yours starting the A vs. B comment. I personally dislike the Airbus products, yet Im very intrested in the A380. Remember, there are probably more Americans posting for a few reason. First, its not an American product so information is a little farther away despite the internet. Second, the European interest in aviation is general is a lot stronger abroad.
-
So now back to the topic. It would be very interesting to get a Airbus engineer's input on this, yes! Good question DIA

ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5913
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:38 am

Quoting EGGD (Reply 9):
Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck?

The reason for the 747's upper level flight deck is because it was so much bigger than any other aircraft at the time Boeing wanted an upward hinging nose so it could be used as a freighter as well as a passenger aircraft. They weren't sure if the market at the time would sustain a passenger jet of that size. Heard that argument here recently?
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:56 am

Quoting PDXtriple7 (Reply 5):
I think the "forehead" looks really awkward. Maybe airbus should add some hair

 rotfl 
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17205
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting Filton216 (Reply 11):
Is it true from what I have heard and that the flight deck has a special lift that goes down to it and only pilots and cabin crew can access?

As far as I know there is a staircase.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
Quoting EGGD (Reply 9):
Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck?

The reason for the 747's upper level flight deck is because it was so much bigger than any other aircraft at the time Boeing wanted an upward hinging nose so it could be used as a freighter as well as a passenger aircraft. They weren't sure if the market at the time would sustain a passenger jet of that size. Heard that argument here recently?

Actually there was no doubt (on Boeing's part) about the need for a jet of the 747s size. The construction of the plane with cargo in mind was due to the expected takeover by SSTs by the late 70s. Also, while the upped deck allows for a cargo door, the main reason was to have the entire main deck dedicated to cargo.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5913
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:42 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
Actually there was no doubt (on Boeing's part) about the need for a jet of the 747s size.

I remember reading at the time that it was a risk. It would be like Airbus or Boeing building a 1,000 seater (in its basic configuration) aircraft now. Remember in the mid-70s 747s were flying the Atlantic half-empty. Time magazine even did a cover-story on this, showing a diagram of two half-empty 747s passing each other.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6443
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:52 am

The A380 flight deck is placed according to a compromise between

- being as low as possible for best view especially during landing (commonality with other Airbus types)
- aerodynamic shape - least possible drag.

The 747 flight deck is placed where it is to allow a large forward cargo door.

As stated by several posters the A380 was never intended for outsized cargo. The world is flooded with old An-124s etc. for that purpose. There simply is no market for an ultra long range outsize cargo plane, especially not with the price tag of a new A380. Outsized cargo on long distance must take the fuel stops needed with An-124s, B-747-200s and such.

The A380 fuselage is a unique triple bubble design. It relies on the two floors for structural integrity of the fuselage when pressurized. The floors cannot be moved one inch up or down, or the fuselage would take a funny shape when pressurized. That alone means that an A330 could probably be converted into a better outsize cargo plane than an A380.

That triple bubble design is very clever for a twin deck pax plane with plenty of baggage (and cargo) room below. But it is a show stopper when it comes to outsized cargo.

An efficient outsize cargo plane must have a circular fuselage - the only shape which allows a low floor and an unobstructed ceiling. To make it perfect it must also have a wing on top of the fuselage to make minimum obstruction in the fuselage by the wing main spar. That's how the An-124, the Lockheed C-5, C-141, C-130 and many other such planes were designed. Or it must have an unpressurized cargo compartment - A300ST Beluga.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5913
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:05 am

Very well explained, Prebennorholm.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:25 am

With regards to the 747, you need to remember that it evolved from a military contract back in the mid-60's. Boeing was in competition with Lockheed and Douglas for what would eventually become the C-5. Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed in the design phase because of cost. They then simply took the military design concept and advanced it into a civilian version. That is the primary reason for the upper flight deck and end-to-end floor space on the main deck - to accommodate the original concept of carrying cargo.

When Boeing took the concept and migrated it to civilian use, they actually toyed with different floor concepts, some of which included a double-decker. One was a mid-wing (in between the two floors), which they discarded for fear no one would want to be on the lower floor in the event of a water landing. The second one was a low wing with two floors (a la A380), which was discarded because of concerns around emergency evacs. They eventually settled on a variation of the original military version, which was a high-mount cockpit that maximized floor space and allowed for loading from the nose of the aircraft.

There's a book that was published in 1970, "747 - Story of the Boeing Super Jet" that has pictures of the various versions they considered.

In any event, I think the version Airbus concocted is the ideal concept. No need for super-sized cargo and the emergency evacuation concerns have been addressed by modern technology via BF Goodrich. Keep in mind, this baby is so big that any additional floor space from repositioning of the cockpit would not necessarily translate into additional revenues. Airbus, or rather a client carrier, has enough floor space to play with as it is to add seats if they need additional revenue.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 19):
With regards to the 747, you need to remember that it evolved from a military contract back in the mid-60's. Boeing was in competition with Lockheed and Douglas for what would eventually become the C-5. Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed in the design phase because of cost. They then simply took the military design concept and advanced it into a civilian version.

Totally incorrect. The 747 looks nothing like what Boeing presented to the military for the large cargo transport competition. The military's large cargo transport competition and development of high bypass engines provided the idea of creating a large passenger aircraft. After Boeing lost the competition they immediately went to work on the 747, first showing three different size aircraft to airlines and asking which one they wanted. Only after that did Boeing start designing the 747 and they went through over 200 drawings before settling on a design. Most of the final designs were full double deckers.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:33 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 1):
This was done to keep pilot cabin compatibilty closer to their current products, so a pilot wouldn't have to relearn flying A380 as if it were a 747 as opposed to coming off of a A330/B767 type.

A pilot still has to be type rated on the A380 as a seperate type, meaning it takes just as much to go from an A340 to A380 as it does a 767 to a 747

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 17):
The world is flooded with old An-124s etc.

An-124s old? I don't think so

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 17):
There simply is no market for an ultra long range outsize cargo plane, especially not with the price tag of a new A380. Outsized cargo on long distance must take the fuel stops needed with An-124s, B-747-200s and such.

The A380 would not be ultra-long ranged in a maxed out MTOW version. It would need stops. As it is, the 772LRF will only have a max range of about 5500nm
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
khenleydia
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:18 am

RE: A380 Wasting Space?

Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:24 pm

Quoting EGGD (Reply 9):
Define wasting space. Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck? Who says just because the two passenger decks don't run right to the very tip of the aircraft that there is 'wasted space'? But I guess had Boeing proposed this design, it would be unique and nobody would question it, right!?

EGGD, To me, wasting space of aircraft means "not using it to get the best seat per mile cost and/or giving it the best chance to for high revenues". Now, Airbus might have decided that the space was better used as something else, which is fine. They know what they are doing.

As for the Boeing comment, I don't think that was needed. If Boeing designed something like this, I would have had a similar question.

For most everyone else, thank you for the insight! I never knew Airbus didn't (or couldn't) make the A380 to have a opening in the nose. You learn a new thing everyday and that can be from reading on this site. Thanks again!

KhenleyDIA
Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos